>> welcome to al jazeera, i'm stephanie sy. here are the top stories we are following here this hour. the start of johannesburg memorial service for nelson mandela is now just three hours away. crowds began gathering at fmb stadium at dawn. crowds have been dancing and singing in the stadium for hours. dges had america will have extended -- al jazeera america will have extended coverage of the proceedings. ice cold and snow 1500

flights have been cancelled nationwide. the standoff continues in ukraine where opposition protesters are face to face with government forces. raided government forces monday, tension has been building for two weeks, since the president rejected european contracts in favor closer ties with russia. those are the headlines, consider this is up next. >> the a.t.f. under fire for

sing operations that reportedly manipulated mentally disabled people and plied minors with alcohol and drugs. did the a.t.f.'s activity encourage crimes that the bureau was supposed to be fighting. a worldwide battle over internet sites. an internet called "the dirty" is appealing a jury's decision against it in an internet lawsuit. why are google, amazon, microsof dirty." >> are we speeding to a new future on the roads? we'll have the latest on self-driving cars and how they could come to a showroom with you. >> and the man that many laughed at representing "the rent is too damn high party" have it right all along? we'll explain. i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this". we deal with a troubling story

about tactics used in six sting operations conducted by the a.t.f. the bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms and explosives. in an investigative series in the milwaukee journal "sentinal," undercover store fronts were set up and mentally disabled men were used as unwitting pawns in their operations. i'm joined from milwaukee by john diedrich, the main reporter on the a.t.f. sting investigative reporter. this story began with you and your paper with a botched sting in milwaukee. what happened there and how did that lead you to the large story country? >> we found a series of follow-ups and stings, including agents having guns stolen, as you mentioned a mentally disabled person employed to promote the store, and they charged the individual.

they arrested some of the wrong people, and committed quite a bit of damage to the landlord's property and did not pay for it. so after that story and the series ran, we looked at - the a.t.f. assured members of congress that this is an isolated incident, we put them to that test and we have been investigating for a number of months and found that it is a broader problem than they portrayed at the beginning. >> after the a.t.f. saying they weren't doing it anywhere else, you found they were doing it in half-a-dozen cities. are more going on elsewhere that you know of? >> there's a lot around the country. the a.t.f. refuses to say much to us. they refuse to discuss where these things are. you can understand that if they are ongoing. we ask for things that were

concluded and they refused all freedom of information requests. so through tips and press releases we were able to cobble together a list, and we found in those six cities has a lot of people talking. >> let me bring some of those in. here are some of the tactics described in your reporting. the bur u used people and in some cases arrested them. it opened undercover drug and buying operations. it provided alcohol and marijuana for teens, encouraged gun theft by offering high prices for stolen weapons, damaged buildings like the one in milwaukee, put suspects to obtain guns bringing higher penalties in court, more elaborate guns and hired a felon to run a pensacola pawn shop to boost arrests. you described them as rogue tactics in your story.

when you listen to the litany of things you found, it seems rogue is a nice way of describing it. >> well, and as people talked about over the last couple of days, there has been colourful terms used. the anecdote we started with is a mentally disabled individual encouraging agents to get a tattoo of a squid smoking a joint. this was to promote the store front sting. and the judge in that case was troubled by that. he's a former u.s. attorney. that was one example. you mentioned the confidential informant of the felon working for the a.t.f. that was in florida. what is interesting in that case is after he helped the a.t.f. bust the people, he, himself, was arrested for pointing a loaded gun at an individual outside a bar which is arguably

a more violent and serious act than the people whom he set up. that case ended up getting picked up in federal court and he got a nice deal six months and he is now on house arrest. >> that case involved a 24-year-old in pensacola, jeremy norris, caught up in the sting. someone asked him for a gun. he had an iq of 76. he sold guns to a known felon working for the a.t.f., and that guy, gary renaud said he didn't think anything was wrong with norris except a drug problem. this is what he had to say:

>> jeremy norris was convicted. because of his mental disability he was given probation. doesn't sound like much of a victory on the war of crime? >> what he doesn't say is the agents and he jokingly referred to him as half-retarded. there was another case in kansas where from the first video the agents referred to a man there with an iq in the mid 50s, of being a slow-headed one. that guy was key because he helped his attorney be the pied piper in the neighbourhood. he was charged at the end with 100 counts of being found in possession. he thought he was working for the - a legitimate store. in fact, he tried to reach out to the a.t.f. after he was arrested, thinking they were his

employer, and they'd bail him out. that's how mentally diminished the individual is. >> according to robert schmitt he said: >> what is your response, the a.t.f. said it was doing it's safe. >> they issued a statement out of washington to the same effect. what our questions were they didn't answer. they were talking about their policy, but we are looking at how did it play out. if your goal is to keep guns off the street, why did you leave a felon to shop the shotgun, because it brings a higher penalty, and in terms of looking at the numbers, if you talk to former federal prosecutors, they say that this is not what the federal system is for.

it's for large, you know, gang take-downs and kingpins of that nature. one individual said if individuals come in and make these cases and they are not going anywhere, it's a waste of federal resources. >> in this case didn't - what many said is to criticise what the atf did, they manufactured crime. people are going out buying guns and bringing them to the atn siting operation, and operated pawn shops where they'd buy garments and other technology so people stole it and brought it to the a.t.f. >> that's right. they'd do it over again. that happened in pensacola and arizona as well. that was not a component here. but time and time again they'd buy these things and that was a concern that the state

prosecutor in florida said, that stimulate the burglaries in the area. an individual stole a bike, rode it there, sold them the bike. the operation was burring larize in pensacola. one guy stole a dvd player from them. >> it's an interesting article and reed. thank you john diedrich, for your time. >> switching topics from a.t.f. tactics and the war on gun and drugs to a call on a truce on the international war on drugs. prohibition and eradication are the official positions of the u.s. and other countries. according to damon barrett, deputy director of harm reduction international:

a story in the "the guardian" claims we say see the story next spring. some european and latin american countries want drug treatment policies to take precedence over punishment and prohibition. what could that mean for the drug war in the united states. i'm joined for more by ethan nadelmann, the director with the drug policy alliance, and from rio de janiero, the director of the open society global drug police program, which advocates for change in global drug policies. great to have you both was. ethan. your organization advo case for drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.

in the end does it mean trying to get legalisation of drugs across the board? >> no, a third or a little more of our work focuses on ending marge prohibition in the u.s. and around the world. beginning with medical marijuana, and now, of course, with 58% of men's saying let's regulate. that's the focus. with the other drugs some membership would say legalize it all. most would say legalize marijuana, tax and regulate it. stop criminalizing people for drug possession. make a commitment to treating it. for those determined to get their drugs. they'll get it from the black market. look at what the europeans have done, allowing heroin addicts getting heroin from clinics. that's not legalisation, it's a

policy advancing public safety. >> if prohibition and punishment as the main punishments is breaking up, why is that happening now? >> there are many reasons. now we are seeing the public health outcomes of the failed policies, that's mostly in europe. we are seeing in latin america the violence that is increasing significantly over the last number of years. so i think on those continents there's increased unrest and disappointment with the counter policies as they stand. those are being articulated more clearly. there's a number of countries, switzerland and others, that have implemented sensible drug policies, and we have much to others. >> hasn't the international experience been buried in some places.

in some places it works well, portugal which has the most liberal policies. it seems it's working there that drug use is down. mixed? >> not really. the bottom line is that any country that made a commitment to a public health approach has buy and large seen positive results. in the netherlands with a retail sale of marijuana has been legal, the rates used are roughly the same, maybe a little lower. they are less in the u.s., which has a harsh prohibition policy. the percentage much dutch young people that start with marijuana going on to harder drugs is lower, because the dutch separated the marijuana market from the other drug markets. by and large the risks of decriminalizing drug possession are virtually nil. the upsize in terms of reducing

time, disease, death, overdoses, the evidence is hands-down clear. when you legalize something, what washington is doing, and uruguay is likely to vote tomorrows, that's where there's a risk of it going up because it's legal. the benefits of reducing the harm to prohibition, black market crimes, violence are overwhelming, which is why i and drug policy alliance are in favour of that direction >> legalisation means lower cost, there's no danger, and the quality of the drugs. you don't have to worry about poison. there's many reasons why it increases for legalisation. >> i don't think the increase will come amongst young people. young people have easy access to marijuana. there's three national surveys in the u.s. where young people say it's easier to buy marijuana than alcohol.

we'll see an increase in people age, 40s, 50, '60s, 70, 80s. people will say, "this helps me sleep. i prefer it to the sleeping pill", it will be a medicinal use that expands. i don't see major health that. >> what is the international response when the u.s. tries to have to both ways, allowing states to experiment with decriminalisation and telling the world that prohibition is problem? >> it's a very telling moment for the united states. for many, many years we have seen the united states being a prohibitionist leader, and now choosing to legalize cannabis. that legitimacy of the leader is

gone. that is why a number of latin american countries are louder, more articulate in what it is that they are - what they are hoping for. and i think the assumption across the u.s. is that those are not the only - they are not the only states to legalize. i assume that those numbers are going to be increasing. i think it's very clear when you talk to leaders in latin america that, you know, they no longer want to listen to the u.s. telling them to be restrictive when, at the same time it is the two u.s. states that are legalizing cannabis. one important point just going back to the question about what is the potential impact of decriminalizing or regulation. looking at the portuguese example is more people go into

treatment since they decriminalized personal matters, because the state is no longer the enemy. it is a potential service provider, and i think that's also an important point. it's not only whether people will use more, it's a question of what is the relationship of citizens, drug-using citizen, and in portugal people want to go into treatment. information. >> according to the leaked documents and i'll talk to ethan about treatment in the united states, but according to the lacked u.n. documents. countries that move away from prohibition include columbia, quata mallia, mexico, morocco, venezuela. morocco is discussing cultivation legalisation, and the ethiopians are concerned about

intravenous drug spread among users. you mentioned before it's part of the process of putting down guerilla groups making money through the drug cartels. won't they just find another way of making money? >> we need to be realistic in expectations. we assume regulation will solve problems, is unrealistic. what we should think about is there's no need to use a failed policy to continue to do what they do. taking the market from the illicit trade is one way to go about disempowering the market. it's the rite direction to move forward, certainly with cannabis and we'll see how the discussion moves in latin america. >> as i read through this i know both your organizations had

support from george soras. the coke brothers, support some think tanks that libertarian think tanks that have the same position as your organizations have on decriminalisation. you have been pushing for a long time for a different approach to handling the drug problem. what significance would it have in the u.s. if the u.n. moved treatment? >> i don't think it will make a great difference. americans are not that interested in what is happening outside of the united states. with washington and colorado voting to legalize marijuana last year and other states poised to follow, look for oregon, maybe california, possibly alaska, an escalation, when i go to latin america, people want to know from the presidents to people at every level of society, they want to know what's going on with legalisation of marijuana.

for them, the notion of united states, the evil empire on the global war on drugs, the u.s. is merging as the growing leader of the policy, not at the federal level, but at civil society. it's galvanising other parts of the world. >> as you said, public opinion - 80% of americans feel that the war on drugs has been a failure. how quickly do you think things states? >> i tell you. i think 2013 will be the tipping points when it comes to marijuana legalisation. because of what happened in washington, because of the gapp up polls. when it comes to dealing with mass incarceration, pulling bark the levels in the u.s. we are at a turning point. it's like turning around an ocean liner. you can point it in a new

direction, unravel the industrial complex we built up. that will take many years and hard work. that's the long-term struggle we have in front of us. >> a lot of changes coming. appreciate you both joining us to talk about them tonight. >> coming up - why are internet golli aths like google, amazon and microsoft coming to the defense of a website. >> and what is aregawi? >> saturday will be the anniversary of one year to the sandy hook shooting. we ask whether anything's changed. join in the conversation:

>> who should be responsible for what someone writes on the internet - the person that writes it or the company that hosts it. why do the companies that compete with each other band together to defend dirty.com, from a defamation suit in court. how much is at stake. what did it mean for the future of the internet. joining us from phoenix via skype is david gingras representing dirty.com and its own, and marie ann franks from the university of law and a board member of the cyber civil rights initiative. >> david, dirty.com is a gossip website letting users post gossip about anyone from celebrities to former girlfriends. sara jones sued because

there was a post that she slept with a team and got an std. the jury found that the website was guilty of defamation and awarded her $338,000. appeal. >> the basis of the appeal is a statute called the communications decency act, a law past in 1996. the purpose was to protect website owners. the law basically says if you run a website that is interactive it allows people to post comments like facebook and twitter, you are not responsible for content. there has been more than 300 reported cases since 1996. every one, without exception has gone the opposite way from what the kentucky judge said. we are arguing that my client runs a website where someone else posted comments. he's not responsible for the accuracy of the words, the

author is. >> section 230 of the communication decency act says no provider or user of an interactive service: >> basically saying if you post something on your website, you are not - you're okay with it, you are protected and you're fine. what is the justification in this case for the court to ignore that law? >> i don't think they are ignoring the law. if you look at the language, th interactive language, it won't cover everything. facebook, google, amazon, and websites dedicated to certain types of content and owners who take the content and make selections, and add their own ideas, it makes them like an

nfls content provider and section 230 does not grant immunity to content providers. it's not true to stay that there is complete blanket immunity. >> that's what the judge said. he hold that dirty.com and its owner liable because he editorialized the content submitted by the users, making himself a part of what was said. is it a fair reasoning? >> it would, but for the language of the statute. i don't agree with the professor's interpretation. i have two responses. dirty.com has been sued and won in other cases under this same argument. a different federal judge in missouri held that the operator was protected by the statute. what i heard marianne say is that if a person is a don't provider, they are not protected.

that is true. really the relevant question is were you the information content provider of the false statements. in this situation the plaintiff never claimed that any of my clients comments or words were defamatory tri. everything he claimed was false was created and posted by someone else. we are in the bucket of my client was running a web set. his comments were not illegal. the users were. >> you have free speech issues and a chilling effect if you don't let people post much online much. >> it could have a chilling effect if you thought the internet was a fragile medium, and headlineson -- horizon and others are crushed. we are not in that world, we may have been 15 years ago, we are not there now. this ruling says it's not going to be the case that you can do

what you like. things that are illegal off line, that you can come online and expect no responsibility. it's an interesting and difficult question to figure out where the line exactly is, when do you stop merely being a facilitator of third party content and become a cocreator or developer or saying there are actions that would qualify you to do that. that doesn't seem to be a bad thing have to be weighed against the fact that there's speech that is not protected. and victims can suffer harm if websites can do what they like. >> he saw the comment and website providers have that ability to do it. why doesn't he self belief. why doesn't he post it? >> first of all, determining

what is and is not defamatory false. >> in this case isn't it something that is on its face that the odds of someone sleeping with 50 football players is extreme. >> the first amendment projects jokes. you are asking the website owner to categorise user-submitted comments and figure out what is true, false. it's a duty that congress did not want. if they had the duty, they would take a hands off approach and say, "i'll let everything go up. i'm not going to look at any of it. responsible. >> what about cyber bullying, is that something. all the issues that arose in connection with that, is there a responsibility of websites to

defamation. >> i appreciate the comment. if you look at the record in our cheerleader case, my client took down thousands of pages of material that he was under no legal obligation to remove. he did it because he thought it may have been bullying. just because he found one or didn't remove one page does not make him legally responsible. you can argue someone misused a gun, i have a solution, let's take away everyone's guns. but for the second amendment, we can do that. same here. >> what are the repercussions if this judge's decision is uphold by a circuit court? >> well, the repercussions could be that it signals the fact that courts are not willing to say that there'll be brode immunity for all sorts of content. it's not accurate to say we have

not seen a conference like this. that the website was in fact liable. you have cases and precedent for showing there'll be situations in which certain types of activity can be liable. that is not a bad thing. it means if you think about and take seriously the harm, that includes cyber stalking, threats, and many things that can destroy people's lives. we have to think about the fact that because something exists online doesn't mean you can't take responsibility for it at all. this is a case where he knew what the comment was so it wasn't like he escaped the notice. we can't have interesting discussions about line drawing. that doesn't mean the line doesn't exist. >> it's a fascinating case and a brave new world. this may make it to the supreme court. time to see what is trending on the website.

aregawi. >> as we approach the one year anniversary of the shooting at sandy hook elementary. the newtown community is asking the media to say out. in a statement released on monday lord said: -- pat llodra said: . >> i asked whether you think anything has changed. many said no. barry says: michael says: on the other hand george says:

>> we asked what you think was important to discuss about mass shootings. joining that conversation on the website. >> straight ahead the path to the future may be smoother. why self-driving cars are not a far-off fantasy. looking back, how did a new discovery change everything we thought we knew about human evolution. later - could sky-high rent on basic apartments put many still experienced some racial tension. so my parents who both started out in segregated schools made sure i knew my history as a young african american girl. they made me learn about martin luther king's march on washington and watch nelson

mandela's acceptance speech when he first took the podium as president. >> so help me god. >> fast forward 17 years later. i'm an eager college senior.r. and it's no surprise i chose south africa as the place to go for my fellowship. when i got there, i started teaching kids in one of the country's poorest townships, kids all born the year that mandela was freed. they were, as we say in south >> every sunday night al jazeera america brings you controversial... >> both parties are owned by the corporations. >> ..entertaining >> it's fun to play with ideas. >> ...thought provoking >> get your damn education. >> ...surprising >> oh, absolutely! >> ...exclusive one-on-one interviews with the most interesting people of our time.

>> you're listening because you want to see what's going to happen. >> i want to know what works what do you know works? >> conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> talk to al jazeera. >> only on al jazeera america. >> oh my! >> more years science fiction predicted the use of cars, involving flying and automation. we are halfway there. california and nevada allowed self-driving cars on the road. google has been testing its model since last year. and sergey brin predicts people will have a.b.c. to autonomous vehicles in less than five years. mercedes and nissan will launch theirs in 2020. i'm joined from stamford california by kara m. kockelman, professor of transportation engineering and the co-author of opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations". and from maddison heights

michigan we are joined by todd lassa, the executive director of "automobile magazine." we see videos of self-driving cars, how soon will technology and the reality. >> they are here already. the technology is here. it's not going to show up in the form of a car that gets in and drives us everywhere. there are technologies that are adding up, coming together to make the autonomous car. we are close. >> in your report you claim if 10% of vehicles on the road from self driven the country would save 37 billion. what other benefits do you see to self-driving cars, how do we save that money? >> crashes are expensive, costing more than 3 billion, that's $1,000 per person.

there's a lot to be safe. congestion is in the order of $2 billion, that's a big savings, to the extent that the vehicles will smooth the freeway, even at the low adoption rate. there's benefits in terms of eco friendly driving and untold benefits for that that do not drive or at certain times of the day. we did not include the numbers. >> how hard will it be for people to accept the cars, and them. >> i think there is, because it's going to trickle in, i think people will accept them without knowing what they are accepting. we have adapt cruise control that will stop and start a car. we have the affinity, and the mercedes, and a little bit of

what i call light ayton my. the car will steer on slightly curved roads. peopler getting used to the technologies. delaying departure control, warn systems, cameras . we are getting used to this. because of way it will trickle in it will become part of every day life and people will accept it. i drive 50 miles each way to work. i see how many people are talking on their phones. it's like a rolling phone booth. people are ready for this. i'm not crazy about theed in -- the need for this. >> texting and driving won't be an issue. we have a viewer question. >> excited but weary about

technology taking up the basket aspects of our lives. how in control is the car relative to the human inside of it. >> i agree. i'm a component of a full manual gearbox and sports cars that are fun to drive. autonomous cars will eliminate that. it takes away a lot of responsibility of the driver. it's good in a lot of cases when you have so many bad drivers. everyone thinks everyone else is a bad driver. there's an awareness that you have when you are driving the car properly, when you are brating up the controls yourself, that you are going to give up and let the car take over. it's like when i grew up we knew how to parallel park. no one knows any more. it's the same thing >> will we get to the point where the cars won't need supervision. if you are busy, you can send the car to pick up your kid at soccer?

>> i think we are looking at mass gridlock if we make it too easy to use and send out. road pricing will be necessary, it can be in the form of credit based congestion. it will be critical to avoid people sending vehicles all over. that's the ultimate purpose, to make driving easier, an example, volvo has an auto-valla. they are not selling it but you drop the person at the front door of the business, a supermarket, the car goes to a parking lot and parks itself. that we'll see. that is not a public road, but a operation. >> you write about how it could affect services out there, trucking and other industries. >> absolutely, those are the first buyers much this is a

vehicle that can work by itself. you can put a lower paid driver in it in case something odd happens, there's a crash and you need someone on site to take care of things. in terms of a crash it's likely than a nonautonomous vehicle crashing into a self-driving vehicle. it will change the face of taxis, and we are seeing that with human driven vehicles with some services, uber, lift and side car - have you heard of those? >> yes, we have. how much are the systems going to cost and are they prohibitive in the future? >> they'll roll out in the expensive cars, like the mercedes class. the acera and infinity q 50. the technologies, the steering i spoke of can be amped up with extra software. it's not that expensive.

there's a lot of work being done. i spent a lot of time with a tyre maker. they are far along with stereo cameras. >> what are the main things to be worked out. >> the main kink is a legal kink. who is responsible for the first autonomous car that gets into an accident. strangely enough the u.s. is ahead of europe. it's considered to be open to the idea of autonomous cars than europe is at this point despite our litigious nature. >> so you think it's more the laws than the technology. you have written about that. others have too, that at this point lawmakers may want to focus on this, and planning for the future. it's coming soon. >> i think traditionally it's held back some of the technologies, for me the biggest

kink is more vision by the vehicle during reflective services. snow, sleet and ice. technologically there's more of a change. i think licensing and assignment of blame. they'll be work out given the value that vehicles bring. it's uneth call not to pursue this. as opposed to todd, i'm someone that hates wasting time in a car. i can't wait to have it drive for me so i can do other things. appreciate you both joining us tonight. thanks for your time. next - it turns out the rent is too damn high. it's not a party, it's a truth for half of america. we'll explain next. the thigh bone is

connected to the understanding of human evolution. the stream is uniquely interactive television. in fact, we depend on you, your ideas, your concerns. >> all these folks are making a whole lot of money. >> you are one of the voices of this show. >> i think you've offended everyone with that kathy. >> hold on, there's some room to offend people, i'm here. >> we have a right to know what's in our food and monsanto do not have the right to hide it from us. >> so join the conversation and make it your own. >> watch the stream. >> and join the conversation online @ajamstream.

>> today's data dive tries to pay the rent or understand why it's difficult torso many to pay it. a study finds cheap apartments have not kept up with demand. that's led to half of all americans who live in a rental subpoenaing 30% of their income to make monthly payments. more than a quarter of them are paying half their income. what does that mean?

>> the rent to too damn high. >> jimmy mcmillan's motto gained him fame running for office in new york. the problem is worse since he was a young man. in 1960, 25% paid a third on rent. and numbers have doubled. the burden is severe on the poor. 83% are spending a third or more of their income on rent. they face a terrible burden to pay for food or basic needs. if you think it will get better, rents will continue to increase. renters who can't afford to buy a home will be in a weak are position and will face rents that will rise. unwelcome for everyone. %

>> why are scientists questioning widely held beliefs in human evolution. the dna discovery that could >> al jazeera america is a straight-forward news channe

>> the history of man has been pulled from a 400,000-year-old fossil. it's changing everything when this comes to what we thought we knew about human evolution. dr hawks is a paleoanthropologist. great to have you with us. tell us about the discovery, and the importance of it. >> basically what it has done is multiplied the ability to look at our ancestry. your dna carries a signature of where we evolved from and came from. finding it adds to the tremendous amount of information them.

thinking? >> up until five years ago, we thought within of the last couple of hundred thousand years, there were three groups of ancient humans, modern humans, neanderthals and homoerectus. it was a simple picture where 400,000-year-old specimens were basically common ancestors of modern humans and neanderthals. what we found in the last five years as we se questioned ancient dna is there were groups we didn't know about. this group in spain is closely related. this little part of the dna to siberian hammon gyms that lived years ago. we have a complicated mix.

>> there may have been multiple species of humans living at the same time? >> it's a great problem for people like me. we have a complication that they are different, they were mixing to some degree. when we call them species, we are not talking about species in the sense of they weren't able to interbreed. we find, in fact, that humans are part neanderthal and part this other population we didn't know about. and the neanderthals are part other stuff. it's a crazy mixture of things that - it's like a dr seuss world in the past. >> when you look at people in different parts of the world, they may have more neanderthal dna or some populations in asia. what they found in spain was a dna and this fossil that had

been found before in siberia. that's totally right. the siberian tosle - i have been in this case, it's literally the end bone of a pinky, and we would know nothing at all about what that bone was like. it's not like we used the pinky bone as an indicator of evolution. out of that we have 3 billion base pairs of dna. we have the whole story of this individual's ancestry from this tiny bone. in the spanish specimen we have a little part of the dna. the technology evolved to the soon. >> we'll see more and more old dna because of the new methods? >> yes, basically as you die and your body degrades, so does your dna. it's broken into tiny bits over time. today's sequencing technology,

not developed for us, evolution is riding the back of biomedical technology. today's, for medicine and uk genetics is built on the idea of sequencing little bits of the gee nom and reassembling them. it's called shotgun sequencing. we use them and advance them. they have done a tremendous job to make the dna from ancient machines. >> do you think we'll find more discovered? >> i anticipate we have sequenced three different groups of people and thought that it looked alike. we have two of them that we didn't anticipate fining before. i expect as we are able to sequence them from more places

less. >> even though they didn't luke that alike in the past. they were interbreeding extensively. >> people ask me what do you imagine the inner like? >> it's basically dances with wolves. different groups that come together and behave as people do whenever they come together. >> why did he is other species go extinct, because we have chimpanzees, all the great aprils, den jirks c. >> -- denicevans hadcapacity. >> it's a great question. ancient people - you think they couldn't be that different considering the variability, i think the real answer is over

time we have sources of human populations that are growing, at the expense of other populations. when people come into contact some succeed more and others decline. doesn't mean they become extinct. they do mix, but over the long term the ones that are growing are continually replacing to a genetic degree the ones that are declining. that's what we are looking at in human origins, it's more expect. >> a lot more complicated as we find the different fossils. dr john hawkes it's great to have you with us. appreciate it. thank you for making something complicated clear. we look forward to having you discoveries. >> the show may be over, the conversation continues on the website. you can find us on twitter. see you next time.

>> remembering nelson mandela. leaders from around the world gather in johannesburg to pay tribute to a global icon as the people in south africa say goodbye to the father of their nation. >> u.s. gets involved in the crisis in central african republic. they call for a calm. >> round 2 - more snow in the forecast. residents brace for disruptions and school closings. >> republicans baulk at